Raj Kumar vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29735 of 2025

Raj Kumar	.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Pratima Pandey, Sushil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶3

Court No. - 66

¶4

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶5

1. List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Shekh Sultan Momin, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Raj Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 328 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2), 115(2) BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Sungarhi, District Pilibhit.

¶8

The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 10938 of 2025 (Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P.).

¶9

The FIR of the matter was lodged by Smt. Asha Kumari on 21.09.2024 against the applicant and three other persons alleging therein that the marriage of her daughter Lajjawati was solemnized with the applicant Raj Kumar around four years back. From the wedlock one child aged about 3 years was born. After marriage the accused persons used to torture and assault her. Her husband Raj Kumar in an intoxicated condition used to assault her. The accused persons were demanding Rs. 1 lakh cash and motorcycle as dowry from her. On 21.09.2024 at about 09:30 am she came to know that her daughter has been assaulted by her in-laws due to dowry. After sometime she came to know that she has been murdered. Report be lodged and action be taken.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the deceased committed suicide and died which is suggestive from the postmortem examination report wherein the

¶11

BAIL No. 29735 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

doctor found a single ligature mark and the cause of death was opined as asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. It is further submitted that the trial in the present matter has started in which Smt. Asha Kumari the first informant was examined as PW-1, Ram Niwas the father of the deceased was examined as PW-2 and Ram Sanehi the uncle of the deceased was examined as PW-3, all the said three witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile by the trial court, copies of the said statements have been placed before the Court which is annexed collectively as annexure 7 to the affidavit. While placing para 19 of the affidavit it is submitted that the applicant is involved in four other cases in which three cases he has been granted bail whereas in one case final report has been submitted, copies of the bail orders and the final report have been placed which is annexed collectively as annexure 6 to the affidavit in support of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 23.09.2024.

¶14

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶15

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that this is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2025. The same reads as under:

¶16

"1. List revised.

¶17

2. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶18

3. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Raj Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 328 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2), 115(2) BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Sungarhi, District Pilibhit.

¶19

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the State informs the Court that the applicant has a criminal history of four cases which has not been disclosed and explained in the affidavit and as such para 20 of the affidavit is false and incorrect.

¶20

5. Learned counsel for the applicant prays that since the criminal history of the applicant has not been disclosed and explained, the present bail application under Section 483 BNSS be dismissed as withdrawn as he intends to file a better application.

¶21

6. The prayer is allowed.

¶22

7. The bail application is dismissed as withdrawn."

¶23

The applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased was found to have received a single ligature mark on her body and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. The trial in the present matter has started in which Smt. Asha Kumari the first informant was examined as PW-1, Ram Niwas the father of the deceased was examined as PW-2 and Ram Sanehi the uncle of the deceased was examined as PW-

¶24

BAIL No. 29735 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

All the said three witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile by the trial court.

¶27

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶28

Let the applicant Raj Kumar , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶29

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶30

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶31

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶32

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023.

¶33

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS, 2023.

¶34

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶35

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the

¶36

BAIL No. 29735 of 2025

¶37

4

¶38

applicant to prison.

¶39